[Quote No.61589] Need Area: Money > General "Choosing to consume less while seeking a higher quality of life is a living strategy that today goes by the name 'voluntary simplicity'. The term was coined in 1936 by Richard Gregg, a follower of Gandhi, who advocated a mindful approach to consumption which involved seeking basic material needs as directly and sustainably as possible and then directing time and energy away from limitless material pursuits in favour of exploring 'the good life' in non-materialistic sources of meaning and fulfilment. This way of life, also known as 'downshifting' or 'simple living', embraces values like moderation, sufficiency, and frugality, and eschews the materialist values of greed, acquisitiveness, luxury, and excess. By exchanging superfluous consumption for more freedom, voluntary simplicity holds out the tantalising prospect that over-consumers could [freely, individually choose to] live more on less, with positive consequences for self, others, and planet.
Despite the apparent coherency of voluntary simplicity as an appropriate response to planetary and social crises [including subjectively 'excessive' individual and family emotional and financial pressures], the social movement or subculture of voluntary simplicity remains marginal. Especially in the developed regions of the world, but increasingly elsewhere, dominant consumerist cultures continue to celebrate affluence, fame, and status on the 'more is better' assumption that increased consumption is the most direct path to happiness and fulfilment." - Samuel Alexander and Jacob Garrett[http://simplicitycollective.com/the-moral-and-ethical-weight-of-voluntary-simplicity-a-philosophical-review ]Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.61938] Need Area: Money > General "[Free-market capitalism and private property incentivizes people to serve the consumer rather than the politician-feudal 'lords':-] Why Politicians Win (and Workers Lose) Under Socialism [Communism, statism, etc., where property is de-privatised]:
Socialism leads to the politicization of society. Hardly anything can be worse for the production of wealth.
Socialism, at least its Marxist version, says its goal is complete equality. The Marxists observe that once you allow private property in the means of production, you allow differences. If I own resource A, then you do not own it and our relationship toward resource A becomes different and unequal. By abolishing private property in the means of production with one stroke, say the Marxists, everyone becomes co-owner of everything. This reflects everyone's equal standing as a human being.
The reality is much different. Declaring everyone a co-owner of everything only nominally solves differences in ownership. It does not solve the real underlying problem: there remain differences in the power to control what is done with resources.
In capitalism, the person who owns a resource can also control what is done with it. In a socialized economy, this isn't true because there is no longer any owner. Nonetheless the problem of control remains. Who is going to decide what is to be done with what? Under socialism, there is only one way: people settle their disagreements over the control of property by superimposing one will upon another. As long as there are differences, people will settle them through political means.
If people want to improve their income under socialism they have to move toward a more highly valued position in the hierarchy of caretakers. That takes political talent.
Under such a system, people will have to spend less time and effort developing their productive skills and more time and effort improving their political talents.
As people shift out of their roles as producers and users of resources, we find that their personalities change. They no longer cultivate the ability to anticipate situations of scarcity to take up productive opportunities, to be aware of technological possibilities, to anticipate changes in consumer demand, and to develop strategies of marketing. They no longer have to be able to initiate, to work, and to respond to the needs of others.
Instead, people develop the ability to assemble public support for their own position and opinion through means of persuasion, demagoguery, and intrigue, through promises, bribes, and threats. Different people rise to the top under socialism than under capitalism. The higher on the socialist hierarchy you look, the more you will find people who are too incompetent to do the job they are supposed to do. It is no hindrance in a caretaker politician's career to be dumb, indolent, inefficient, and uncaring. He only needs superior political skills. This too contributes to the impoverishment of society.
The United States is not fully socialized, but already we see the disastrous effects of a politicized society as our own politicians continue to encroach on the rights of private property owners. All the impoverishing effects of socialism are with us in the U.S.: reduced levels of investment and saving, the misallocation of resources, the over-utilization and vandalization of factors of production, and the inferior quality of products and services. And these are only tastes of life under total socialism." - Hans-Hermann HoppeExcerpted from 'Why Socialism Must Fail', published in 'The Free Market Reader'. [Refer https://mises.org/blog/why-politicians-win-and-workers-lose-under-socialism ]Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.62347] Need Area: Money > General "[What's your best money advice for people who are just starting out?]
Get a spending plan together. Break it down into the three E's: essentials, extras and endgame. Seventy percent of your overall budget should go to essentials: housing, transportation, food, all the stuff you need to live on every day. Fifteen percent should go to extras: the latte, yoga class, whatever makes you excited. Fifteen percent should go to the endgame [or savings goals]: your future self, your retirement, your vacation. Create savings accounts and name them so you know exactly what you're saving for.
I argue for the morning latte because it [makes sticking to a budget] more sustainable...If you allow yourself small indulgences, you won't end up splurging on something super expensive later on." - Nicole LapinTelevision presenter and author. [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nicole-lapins-best-money-advice-2017-06-05? ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia - Author on ebay - Author on Amazon - More Quotes by this AuthorStart Searching Amazon for GiftsSend as Free eCard with optional Google Image